Editorial: Bad precedent for governor’s rights to negotiate

Published
10:51 pm CDT, Monday, May 16, 2016

ke most bad late-night movies that center on the main character coming back from the dead, lawmakers have resurrected a proposal to strip the governor of his mandated authority to negotiate a contract with state workers.

The sequel, like last fall’s original, was vetoed Monday by Gov. Bruce Rauner.

That will set up the opportunity for legislators to cobble enough votes to override the rejection.

Democrats think they have the votes to do just that. If so, it would take negotiations out of the governor’s hands and place them with arbitrators.

But they also thought the override numbers were there in the fall, and they were not. The failure to keep the legislation alive at that time was seen as a significant defeat for powerful House Speaker Michael Madigan.

Things have changed in the months since, though. Polls are showing Rauner losing popularity points as an impasse over the state budget drags on without a sign of resolution.

That shouldn’t be a factor in deciding whether to allow a blatantly anti-Rauner piece of legislation set a bad precedent for the rights of a governor to negotiate a contract with state workers.

It’s no secret Democrats don’t want Rauner to call the shots. That’s why the legislation would expire about the time Rauner’s term in office is over.

What would happen if the expected veto were overridden is that the state’s largest employee union — the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees — would be in a better position to push for the contract it has been seeking since July. Arbitrators historically have tended to side with unions in Illinois, despite being billed as impartial.

Some of the components of the contract AFSCME is seeking for its more than 38,000 workers are automatic yearly pay raises averaging about 4 percent, 37.5-hour work weeks — after which everything would be considered overtime — and 13 paid holidays, from 10 to 25 vacation days, three personal days and 12 sick days that can be accumulated from year to year.

But Rauner wants a pay freeze and cuts to some benefits, including healthcare premiums. He also wants state workers paid based on 40-hour work weeks and no automatic pay increases “just because.”

The governor maintains the state cannot afford the contract, which by his administration’s accounting would add about $3 billion to the state’s payroll.

Other state-worker unions — 17, in fact — have been able to resolve their contracts. AFSCME has been resolute, though, and negotiations have gone nowhere for months.

The next stage, should the attempt to make an end-run on the governor’s authority fail, would be for a judge to declare the sides at an impasse. That process has begun and could take months to be worked out, with the union workers being forced to operate under the terms of the existing contract until that important phrase is decided.

After that, the union would be within its rights to strike. That could allow the governor to require “essential state workers” to return to their jobs and replace the others on a temporary basis.

The union has said it doesn’t want a strike, and there’s a reason for that aside from the loss of weekly paychecks for its members. Strikes by state workers have tended to erode public perception of the unions, making it even harder to push for what they want in future contracts.

Perhaps that’s why they have sought help from their Democratic allies. The union has been kind to Democratic governors through campaign contributions, and the governors have tended to handle them with kid gloves.

Unions have the right, and should, always to do what they consider best for the workers they represent. But fairness to the taxpayers has to be a factor, too.

And so far, attempts to circumvent the system like the legislature is considering now have shown that doesn’t seem to be anywhere on the bargaining table.